Toxins on Mutations

Post Reply New Topic

We know that certain drugs cause side effects, but what if toxins affect mutated genes more so than the rest of our DNA? Autistics have more mutations than normal people. What if we just are more prone to neurological damage becaue our bodies respond randomly to chemicals.

I notice that mutated plants either get vigorous or fragile when they mutate. Most of the time they develop new traits to adapt to last year's climate and care. I'm wondering if autistic people are adaptations of our sociopathic culture and exposure to toxic chemicals as well as living most of our lives vicariously through the media that seeks to brainwash us in order to make us non-free-thinking-consuming-replicas.

Evidence, please? Please include links to relevant research papers from reputable peer-review journals.Evidence, please? Especially that part about adapting to "last year's climate and care". Please include links to relevant research papers from reputable peer-review journals.Theorize conspiracies much? This also reads like a watered-down version of the old "Aspies are the next stage in human evolution" myth.

Fnord, you're ignoring basic stimulus/response logic in asking for citations. OP is here with a theory that does in fact have a lot of grounding in research. Environmental impacts on health are not a harebrained conspiracy, you're painting with too broad a brush.

I know you tend to go around calling everybody a crackpot, instead you could open your mind to what people are actually thinking about rather than demanding an academic hue & cry.

OR you could try helping the OP back up her claims with some valid citations, instead of asking me to simply "have faith and believe" every esoteric claim that comes along.

Besides, my mind is open to new ideas, provided they come from trustworthy, reliable sources, and not just any random stranger with a network connection.

Sometimes there's nothing to cite because OP still wants to learn about something. I didn't ask you to believe anything, only to consider it. The research on other risk factors is more or less equally inconclusive so I don't think this should be ignored. A lot of mutations associated with Autism are not heritable so that pretty much leaves in-utero hormonal & chemical toxcicity.

If you're going to demand citations you're probably holding back speculation that feeds actual research.

I believe autism can be said to be partially "heritable," but at least somewhat random.

This has been proven through twin studies---wherein, frequently, both twins might have autism---but that one has a less severe form of it than the other.

It is not "Mendelian"-type heritable, of course. It is neither a dominant genetic disorder, or a recessive genetic disorder. There is neither a 1 in 2, or a 1 in 4 chance of somebody with autism bearing a baby with autism.

It bothers me when somebody talks about "bad genes" or "good genes." Many people who seem to have "good genes" have actually produced "bad apples." The products of apparently "bad genes" have sometimes been people who were great innovators in many ways.

All I know is that chemical toxicity basically can't be completely absent from the causes of a gigantic, completely random set of mutations spanning zillions of people.

I believe environmental things could be a cause, primarily during the perinatal period. And, perhaps, infancy.

Animals can mutate well after infancy. Im Surprised no one notices that. Our genes can be affected by radioactive waves as well. Y'all need Jesus! Wake up white people.

Actually science used to believe radiation was responsible for genetic diversity moreso than evolutionary selection. Honestly it's more responsible for localized genetic problems having more to do with my whiteness. Nevertheless while all kinds of mutations are problematic, developmental mutations are the most troublesome.

The question is: do these mutations lead to Autism/Aspergers?

Toxins affect mutations differently than stable species that have been longer established in the same environment. I learned from gardening that too much synthetic fertilizer kills new lying adapted plants more than it affects established plants. During growing stages toxins have a more serious affect whether good or bad, but those plants pass down copies of their DNA to the next generation after having already altered during their developmental stage.

I have considered the OPs claims. Now I'm waiting for her to provide the data and observations that led her to her conclusions. This process is part of what's called Science.Wrong. By "demanding" citations, I am encouraging real research into the topic, and not just mere speculation.

Assigning the same degree of validity to a speculative idea (that has not been researched at all) as one would assign to a scientific principle (that has been repeatedly tested and validated under the Scientific Method) is just plain stupid.

Otherwise, you have nothing more than New-Age philosophy and comic-book magic.

What you are implying is that if a person comes in contact with a poisonous substance, their DNA is permanently altered, and that the person's offspring will no longer be human. I would like to see your research data -- do you have any? Or are your claims merely garden-variety speculation by an amateur with no formal training in toxicology or genetics?

Fnord, the scientific method is not as stupid as you interpret it to be. True science is about observing the world with an unbiased perception.

You are preaching to the choir. I know all about the Scientific Method, having worked in pure research, applied research, and research & development.

In the SM, all claims are approached with a critical mind-set (not an "open mind"), in which claims require evidence and extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence, as well.

So, where is the evidence for your claims?